In Buddhism, “bodhicitta” refers to the person whose goal is to show more empathy and compassion for the benefit of all beings; the individual is seeking an “awakened mind.” As mediators, at our best, we also are always seeking to show more compassion in our role of helping individuals through conflict. In that way, we can stay “awakened” to what is going on in the lives of those who come to us when they are most vulnerable.
Again, this is not an easy task nor is it something that is actively sought out as important for the field. Neither mediators nor attorneys are required to have continuing education to help them be more compassionate. While it may be an aspirational goal for some, the “awakened mind” is not at the forefront of mediation training.
The field of mediation is not set up to “screen” mediators for their ability to show empathy in part because of the different ways individuals approach mediation. Some still see mediation as an extension of the adversarial process, it is another chance for attorneys to “battle it out” albeit outside of the judicial system. Others see mediators as a place where caucuses replace face-to-face encounters with the parties. Mediators use caucuses to engage in shuttle diplomacy and expeditiously solve the “problem” by bringing people into mediation. This popular model affords the mediator a quicker resolution to the issue and a speedier financial resolution to the case. While many individuals do not consider this model real “mediation,” there are no rules that regulate what defines mediation.
Across countries and borders, mediation takes on the culture and customs of the people who shape it. Although there are some similarities in mediation, the process of bringing people together who are in conflict, varies depending on the individuals, the culture, the norms, and the expectations. Likewise, how people view compassion also varies from individual to individual. Research suggests (Galton, Love, & Weiss, 2021) that more individuals are looking to expedite the mediation process with caucuses because it takes less time than helping individuals work out their conflicts together. However, Galton, Love, & Weiss (2021) cite several studies showing that the individuals participating in mediation are not satisfied with the caucus model. Individuals in conflict want to be heard, want to hear each other, and want someone to facilitate the process. The caucus-only model does not help either side get the process they are seeking but merely focuses on a quick resolution to the legal issue that was presented. Individuals in conflict still have not been able to listen and hear the other side, work through issues, understand another person’s perspective, or come together so that not only the issue is resolved, but so is their ability to work together. Interestingly, it is just those elements that are missing most in our culture and our world. “The trajectory of mediation may be mirroring a fractured, polarized society where the conversation is perceived as awkward, if not dangerous” (Galton, Love, & Weiss, 2021, p. 97).
What might be most important is for mediators to realize we have options. We can be guided by a spirit of “bodhicitta,” seeking to be more empathic and compassionate to really help those in conflict, not just expedite a process for monetary gain. When we elevate our process, we may find a way through conflict that provides more satisfaction for all parties and even help individuals heal through a compassionate approach. In so doing, we may make an even more significant impact in our own lives, our communities as well as our world.
References
Galton, E., Love, L. & Weiss, J. (2021). The decline of dialogue: The rise of caucus-only mediation and the disappearance of the joint session. Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, 39 (6), pp.96-100.